With the Monsoon Session of 2026 concluded, Parliament‘s record must be judged not by the decibel level it produced, but by the work it completed. The latest verified figures available at the time of writing came from the PRS Legislative Research productivity dashboard. Covering all 19 scheduled sittings through August 13, they show that Lok Sabha worked for 17.5 hours, or 15 per cent of scheduled time, while Rajya Sabha worked for 37.37 hours, or 33 per cent. Against roughly 114 scheduled hours in each House over the full session, the shortfall was about 96.5 hours in Lok Sabha and 76.6 hours in Rajya Sabha.
The rupee figure also requires honesty. India has no fresh official per-minute tariff. The widely used benchmark of Rs 2.5 lakh per minute for both Houses dates to figures presented in 2012, updating a 2008 Lok Sabha Secretariat assessment. Applying its commonly reported split of Rs 1.25 lakh per House-minute to the 173.1-hour shortfall gives an indicative opportunity cost of about Rs 130 crore for the full session. This is a measure of taxpayer-funded capacity that did not become parliamentary work.
The financial cost is only the visible edge. When Question Hour disappears, ministers escape questions that taxpayers have paid Parliament to ask. When Zero Hour is drowned out, constituency concerns lose their national forum. When legislative time collapses, bills are either delayed or passed without adequate scrutiny. This is becoming a norm: In the 2025 Monsoon Session, two-thirds of planned time was lost to disruptions. Yet, paralysis is not inevitable. In the 2026 Budget Session, Lok Sabha worked for 86 per cent and Rajya Sabha for 92 per cent of scheduled time. The same institution works when political actors choose deliberation over spectacle.
Gen Z and millennials understand the distinction between activity and achievement. Their working and civic lives are mediated by real-time dashboards, service ratings, delivery timelines and visible outcomes. They do not merely ask, “Were you present?” They ask, “What changed because you were there?” They are unlikely to accept an older standard for the country’s highest deliberative institution.
Parliament is not a corporation, and MPs are representatives, not employees of the executive. Democratic work cannot be reduced to quarterly targets. Dissent is work. A sharp question is work. A reasoned speech against a Bill is work. A committee report that changes a clause is work. Protest is also a legitimate parliamentary instrument, and a walkout can place principled disagreement on record while allowing the House to proceed. But slogan-shouting that repeatedly forces adjournment is different: It turns one group’s protest into a veto over every other member and voter.
The responsibility for a functioning Parliament is joint. The government has the first duty to list business transparently, provide adequate notice, make room for legitimate Opposition issues and ensure that ministers answer. But the Opposition is not a spectator to institutional performance. It has an equally important responsibility to preserve the forum through which it scrutinises the executive. The majority cannot bulldoze; the minority cannot blockade. Running the House cannot be entrusted to one party while another treats disruption as its principal output.
The events of August 12 make that distinction unavoidable. Home Minister Amit Shah, whose answer the Opposition had demanded, offered an extended debate, said he would sit through it until 3 pm on August 13 and respond to every question, and wrote to the Speaker seeking time. The Opposition rejected the proposal, saying it did not want a lecture. One may challenge the Home Minister’s explanation, cross-examine it, reject it and continue to demand political accountability. But when the minister whose answer is sought offers to hear every charge and reply in the House, why refuse the parliamentary forum? Demanding an answer and then declining to hear it is not scrutiny; it is a contradiction.
This is why Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on the “politics of performance” is relevant beyond elections and executive delivery. He has repeatedly made measurable outcomes, last-mile execution and saturation of public services central to governance. That standard cannot stop at Parliament’s doors. A government that asks ministries to deliver should welcome rigorous legislative scrutiny. An Opposition that demands accountability should be judged by the quality of its questions, alternatives and interventions, not by the number of adjournments it can cause.
The attendance-and-allowance system illustrates the symbolic problem. The current daily allowance is Rs 2,500, and on sitting days a member signs the attendance register as part of the eligibility process. Travel allowance is a separate statutory entitlement and should not be conflated with that signature. The sum is modest beside the combined allocation of Rs 1,491.99 crore for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in 2026-27. But the signal matters: A signature proves presence, not performance.
India needs a Parliamentary Performance Compact agreed by the government, Opposition and presiding officers. Its first rule should be simple: No lost hour without make-up time. If disruption erases scheduled business, the House should sit late, use an additional day or recover the time within the same session. Political disagreement may reorder the agenda; it should not reduce the total quantum of parliamentary work.
Second, the right to protest should be matched by a guaranteed route to debate. Political parties must commit that the allocated debate will proceed. The government must answer; the Opposition must listen, rebut and vote. Accountability is a two-way parliamentary process, not a one-way television performance.
Third, Parliament should publish a uniform, real-time dashboard showing verified attendance, duration of presence, questions, debates, committee work, private members’ business, Bills sent for scrutiny, time lost and time recovered. Metrics must remain contextual: a thoughtful intervention is worth more than ten repetitive speeches, and committee and constituency duties must count. The purpose is not to rank MPs like salespeople. It is to let citizens see whether public time produced public value.
Finally, the daily allowance needs a clearer accountability rule. After due process, a member formally named or suspended by the Chair for grave disorder should forfeit the allowance for that sitting. More broadly, eligibility could require verified participation in the House, a committee or another recorded parliamentary duty. The fiscal saving will be small; the behavioural signal will be large.
Taxpayers do not finance unanimity; they finance disagreement disciplined into democratic decision. Parliament exists for debate, discussion, deliberation and resolution, not for converting paralysis into short-term political gain. PM Modi’s politics of performance has raised the citizens’ expectations of government. Parliament, including the Opposition, must rise to the same standard. A signature may establish attendance. Only work can establish performance.
The writer is a professor of finance at XLRI and a part-time member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Views are personal
The bill, passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, seeks to prohibit states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, except in accordance with conditions or restrictions prescribed by the Centre. (File Photo) 
Share
